RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review by 25 July 2012

["Dorrain, Kristine" <kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Since I'm the one that brought it up, I will say we've seen the "fake filing" 
probably 5 times in the 7 years I've been with NAF.  And it's usually the 
registrar who says "hey, I got this complaint and I locked and I never heard 
from you, what's up?"  It's extremely rare, at least to my knowledge.

I agree, that where a complainant has filed the complaint and then 
simultaneously served the registrar and registrant, an observant Registrar 
would notice that and could act immediately.  I agree that would (does) help 
the cyberflight issue and that we do not want to discourage that.

Kristine


From: Schneller, Matt [mailto:Matt.Schneller@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:17 AM
To: 'Marika Konings'; Volker Greimann; Dorrain, Kristine
Cc: 'Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review by 25 July 2012

Hi all,

Does anyone have any data for how often they have seen complaints sent to 
registrars but where UDRPs are not filed?  I just haven't run into it, so some 
numerical context might be useful.  I am not entirely sure what the real 
benefit would be to the party who does that.  The registrar survey indicated 
that registrar locks usually prevent an immediate transfer to another registrar 
for the short term (not usually a crucial thing that has to be done right away 
- nothing bad happens to it if it remains at its current registrar, and most 
domains aren't pinged around between registrars on a regular basis) or briefly 
prevents changes to registrant data (ditto - ownership information for most 
domains is quite static); changes to DNS server information and etc. are 
usually still permitted.  Within a couple of business days, if there is no 
notice from the Provider, the lock is presumably removed.  It just seems like a 
lot of hassle to do, and yield minimal (if ill-gotten) benefits to the 
submitter of the fake complaint.

As to the wording here, in the final version of the registrar survey, 46% of 
registrars indicated that they locked on receipt of the complaint from 
complainant and 49% indicated that they lock on notice from the provider.  I'm 
not sure that a statement that the "vast majority" of registrars lock only upon 
receipt of notice from the Provider quite fits the registrar survey data.  In 
addition, as a policy matter, a complaint-driven lock has some concrete 
benefits.

WIPO (WIPO Supp. R. 4(c)) and NAF rules (NAF Supp. R. 4(d)(1)) require copying 
the registrar on the complaint at the time of filing.  At least in UDRPs that I 
have seen, the complainant just e-mails the complaint to the Provider, one of 
the filing triggers, and cc's the registrar and registrant.  This ticks off all 
the service requirements, and provides the registrar notice that the complaint 
has been officially filed with the Provider and served on the registrant.

This simultaneous service creates some real issues.  As survey results 
indicated, there is almost always a period of time between a few hours to a 
couple of actual (non-business) days between filing (and thus service on / 
notification to the registrant and registrar) and the notice from the Provider, 
and a similar time gap between notice from the Provider and implementation of 
the lock by the registrar (with a very very slow outliers).  This time period 
gives a registrant intent on creating problems the time (s)he needs to switch 
registrant information details and/or registrars to push the parties' mutual 
jurisdiction into a remote or inconvenient location.  If the registrant 
information and/or registrar changes after filing but prior to issuing the 
notice - a pretty frequent occurrence - the Providers will typically require 
the complaint to be updated.  This takes time and costs money, obviously, but 
that's almost secondary to the registrant / registrar "flight."  Without a lock 
that is applied really quickly after filing, there is no way for a complainant 
to prevent flight from occurring.  Since 46% of responding registrars are 
providing a more-immediate lock, and that lock helps prevent problematic 
registrar/registrant flight, I don't know that we want to implicitly discourage 
registrars from taking this step (or others from supporting it in comments), 
since it has some really concrete benefits in a lot of cases.

Maybe an option that could be considered in parallel with the locking timing is 
just a slightly different reading of the Policy by the Providers.  If the 
complaint captioning and mutual jurisdiction agreed to by the complainant at 
the time of filing (evidenced by current WHOIS records) controlled and did not 
need to be revised or the mutual jurisdiction accession changed based on 
post-complaint-filing changes to registrant information or registrar transfers, 
the timing of the registrar lock would be proportionately slightly less 
important.

Matt
206-279-1895

From: owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:19 AM
To: Volker Greimann; Dorrain, Kristine
Cc: 'Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review by 25 July 2012

Based on  your comments, would it be helpful to add the following after the 
charter question in the different outreach documents: [Note from the WG: only 
the UDRP Provider can notify a Registrar that a complaint has been officially 
filed and in the vast majority of cases, Registrars will only implement a lock 
based on the request by the UDRP Provider]

With best regards,

Marika

From: Volker Greimann 
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday 24 July 2012 16:42
To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review by 25 July 2012

Speaking for a registrar, I agree with Kristine. We need evidence that the UDRP 
complaint has been filed, which is not evidenced by the submission of the 
complaint to us by the complainant, but only upon the initiation of procedures 
by the UDRP provider. We have also seen cases where we received a complaint, 
but not the opening questionaire, so locking the domain name would have been 
the wrong way to go.

OTOH, we do realize that this causes a smallish loophole, as a registrar so 
inclined might warn the registrant of the complaint before being required to 
lock it and enable him to enact all kinds of shenanigans. Not sure how common 
this is though, we never forward the complaint to the registrant. For about 50% 
of all complaints we receive, we do not receive the complaint before we receive 
the provider questionnaire, maybe because of this risk...

Best,

Volker
Marika, this looks good.  My only question involves the first charter question 
and how we want to present that.  The question addresses steps *complainants* 
must do to obtain a lock, however, only the UDRP  Provider can tell a Registrar 
that a complaint has really been filed (some complainants actually send a UDRP 
complaint to the respondent and registrar and never actually file it-it's rare 
but it's happened) and in the vast majority of cases, Registrars will only 
implement a lock based on a request by the Provider.  I realize that is the 
wording of the charter question, but I wonder if we can ask it differently or 
add a sub-part?  I think we want to know what information from the Provider 
would make a Registrar's life easier.  Or maybe we *do* want to ask if 
Complainants should be submitting something specially to the Registrar (in 
addition to the complaint, which  I believe at least NAF and WIPO require)?  I 
suspect Registrars do not want to hear from complainants, but I think we want 
to know what the Registrar DOES want.

I hope I'm making myself clear.  Or maybe the Registrars on the list can 
clarify that they really do want the complainants to do something.

Kristine


Kristine Fordahl Dorrain



Director of Internet and IP Services







National Arbitration Forum (FORUM)

Direct  952. 516. 6456

6465 Wayzata Blvd.

Mobile  952. 836. 8613

Suite 470

Email  kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Minneapolis, MN  55426

http://domains.adrforum.com





This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged 
information.  If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible 
for delivering it to the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and destroy all copies of this message and attachments.




From: owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:14 PM
To: Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review by 25 July 2012

Dear All,

As discussed during today's meeting, please find attached for your review the 
proposed public comment forum text, the request for SG/C input and the email to 
request input from other ICANN SO/ACs. Please send any comments / edits and/or 
questions you may have by Wednesday 25 July at 14.00 UTC at the latest.

Thanks,

Marika



--

Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.



Mit freundlichen Grüßen,



Volker A. Greimann

- Rechtsabteilung -



Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901

Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851

Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / 
www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
 / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>



Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:

www.key-systems.net/facebook<http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>



Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin

Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken

Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534



Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>



Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht 
nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder 
telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.



--------------------------------------------



Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.



Best regards,



Volker A. Greimann

- legal department -



Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901

Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851

Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / 
www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
 / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>



Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:

www.key-systems.net/facebook<http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>



CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken

V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534



Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>



This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.